Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce today that the World Trade Organization has established a dispute settlement panel to hear our challenge on the U.S. country of origin labelling. We are putting farmers first and we are confident that we will win our challenge.

However, the Liberal Party is alarmingly out of touch with agriculture and our livestock sector, and it would have us abandon this challenge. Just listen to what Bob Russell, who is the former Liberal candidate in Edmonton—St. Albert and was recognized as the Liberal of the year in 2007, said, “COOL appears to be an idea whose time has come and that our producers should meet this demand”.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General says Marine Atlantic is on the verge of not being able to provide the ferry service between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. This is not news to the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia who have repeatedly asked to have the continuous problems plaguing the crown corporation fixed.

While Marine Atlantic needs a long-term plan, there are immediate needs that must be addressed now. Chronic mechanical breakdowns and docking problems are common. Band-aid solutions are not acceptable any more.

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns that the member has raised, not just those that have been reported by the Auditor General but also from her constituents and others in Newfoundland and Labrador and on the mainland in Atlantic Canada.

Since 2007 the government has committed an additional $416 million for Marine Atlantic which includes $98 million toward a five year charter agreement for the MV Atlantic Vision.

We recently also announced $9.5 million of funding to deal with shore-based priorities in Cape Breton. We are committed in the long-term to Marine Atlantic. We are committed to work with the member and everyone to make it a better service for those in the east.

Mr. Speaker, today around the world Transgender Day of Remembrance is being marked to remember transsexual and transgender people who have died due to transphobic violence.

In Canada transgender people face violence, harassment and discrimination in the workplace, in health care and in housing.

Will the government introduce legislation to add explicit protection for transsexual and transgender Canadians in the Canadian Human Rights Act? If not, will the government support private members' legislation to add gender identity and expression as a prohibited ground of discrimination?

Mr. Speaker, our government is of course strongly committed to protecting Canadians from all forms of criminal violence and indeed protecting all Canadians. I should underline that.

That is why we introduced the Tackling Violent Crime Act and had it passed by the House. That is why we are looking to repeal the faint hope clause. That is why we are eliminating the bonus credits for time served for those who are facing prosecution for serious violent offences.

As for the specific legislative suggestions the member has made, I am happy to share those with the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that all too often during the heat of debate in question period things are said that people afterwards might think that they wished they had not said.

During question period today, when the hon. Minister of Transport was replying to the supplementary question from the member for Malpeque, the official opposition House leader said, “What do you want, a body bag?”

I want to give my hon. colleague from Wascana the opportunity to withdraw those words. I think they are completely over the line. I recognize that sometimes it is a heated debate in this place, but with all due respect I think that was clearly way over the line.

Mr. Speaker, the line of argument being advanced by the minister, who was answering today on behalf of the government with respect to the situation in Afghanistan, was that there were no proven allegations with respect to what Richard Colvin had put on the record. That was the minister's defence: where is the evidence that would prove the allegations?

The point is, what kind of evidence would the government consider sufficient or satisfactory to satisfy it that the allegations are in its words “proven”? The point of the intervention in question period was to ask the government to be specific. What kind of evidence is sufficient from its point of view to be a proven allegation?

If the government found a particular interjection to be offensive from its point of view, we can completely withdraw that allegation. The point is, answer the question. What evidence is sufficient to satisfy the government?

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on poverty reduction in Canada.

November 24, four days from now, will mark the 20th anniversary of the resolution passed by this House to reduce poverty by the year 2000. That goal was not met. Therefore, the government is invited to present a plan to the House to address this issue.

Madam Speaker, I have several petitions. The first one is from folks who are really concerned about what is happening in the health debate in the United States. They found offensive a campaign of false information being used to discredit our public health care system with the people of the United States by powerful opponents of President Obama's proposed health care reforms.

They call upon Parliament to immediately undertake an official campaign to counteract the misinformation and that one of the first priorities of the new ambassador should be to make representation to the American people on the merits of Canada's universal health care system.

Madam Speaker, the second petition deals with Bill C-428. A number of persons in my riding are concerned about this private member's bill. They say that there are currently already 50 social security agreements in place with a wide variety of countries that allow for a period of residence and contributions to the other country to be used to meet a 10-year requirement.